The Trump-Putin Meeting: Establishment of a Personal Relationship, “There was Positive Chemistry Between the Two” White House Press Briefing

On
July 7 following Trump’s meeting with Putin, a US Press Briefing was held
at the G20 in Hamburg.

It
is important to analyze the shift in political discourse of both President
Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson.

The main contribution of the
Trump-Putin meeting was to establish communication at a personal level.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads.
That Trump-Putin personal relationship is fundamental.

History tells us that political
misunderstandings can lead to war.

Admittedly no significant shifts in US
foreign policy have occurred: the Pentagon’s military agenda prevails. Media
lies and political deceit also prevail.

Yet at the same time, discussion and
diplomatic exchange have resumed –which in many regards is an important
achievement.

”
The two leaders, I would say, connected very quickly. There was a very
clear positive chemistry between the two. I
think, again — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had many,
many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of
re-litigating of the past. I think both of the leaders feel like there’s
a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about. We’re
unhappy, they’re unhappy.

I think the perspective of both of them
was, this is a really important
relationship. Two largest nuclear powers in the world. How do we start making this work? How
do we live with one another? How do we work with one another? We
simply have to find a way to go forward. And I think that was — that was
expressed over and over, multiple times, I think by both Presidents, this
strong desire. (Tillerson)

In this regard, a certain sanity in the
international relations narrative has been restored. Ironically, Washington
casually admits it’s mistakes in relation to Russia. In the words of Secretary
of State Tillerson:

“So we want to build on the
commonality, and we spent a lot of time talking about next steps. And
then where there’s differences, we have more work to get together and
understand. Maybe they’ve got the
right approach and we’ve got the wrong” (emphasis added)

Moreover, the meeting is also a slap in
the face for the Deep State Neocons, the US media not to mention Hillary et al,
who continue to blame Moscow for having intervened in the 2016 US presidential
elections while casually portraying Trump as a Manchurian candidate controlled
by the Kremlin.

The “Russia Did It” narrative, which
borders on ridicule, no longer holds. In turn, Trump’s position has to
some extent also been reinforced. Not surprisingly, the US media has slashed
back at Trump accusing him of having been manipulated by Putin. According
to CNN “Putin may have less of a warm diplomatic bedside manner, but he
understands the art of presentation and how to set a trap.”

An
important threshold has been reached

Has talking to the Kremlin rather than
waging war on Russia become the “new normal” (at least at the level of
political discourse)? Not yet.

Nonetheless, an important transition
has taken place. Talking to the Kremlin sets a new momentum. Lest we forget,
history tells us that all out war could unfold as a result of a personal
political misunderstanding. Remember
World War I.

SECRETARY MNUCHIN: Hi, everybody.
I just want to highlight very briefly, and then Secretary Tillerson will
go on, and then afterwards we’ll both answer a few questions.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Thank you,
Steve, and thanks for staying with us late these evening.

President Trump and President Putin met
this afternoon for 2 hours and 15
minutes [for a longer period of time than what was initially agreed
upon by the two governments] here on the sidelines of the G20. The two
leaders exchanged views on the current nature of the U.S.-Russia relationship
and the future of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

They discussed important progress that
was made in Syria, and I think all of you have seen some of the news that just
broke regarding a de-escalation agreement
and memorandum, which was agreed between the United States, Russia and Jordan, [this
agreement was no doubt drafted before the Trump Putin meeting] for an important
area in southwest Syria that affects Jordan’s security, but also is a very
complicated part of the Syrian battlefield.

This
de-escalation area was agreed, it’s well-defined,
agreements on who will secure this area. A ceasefire has been entered
into. And I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia
being able to work together in Syria. And as a result of that, we had a very lengthy discussion regarding
other areas in Syria that we can continue to work together on to de-escalate
the areas and violence once we defeat ISIS, and to work together toward a
political process that will secure the future of the Syrian people.

As a result, at the request of
President Putin, the United States has appointed — and you’ve seen, I think,
the announcement of Special Representative for Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker.
Ambassador Volker will draw on his decades of experience in the U.S.
Diplomatic Corps, both as a representative to NATO and also his time as a
permanent political appointment.

The
two leaders also acknowledged the challenges of cyber threats and interference
in the democratic processes of the United States and other countries,
and agreed to explore creating a framework around which the two countries can
work together to better understand how to deal with these cyber threats, both
in terms of how these tools are used to in interfere with the internal affairs
of countries, but also how these tools are used to threaten infrastructure, how
these tools are used from a terrorism standpoint as well.

The
President opened the meeting with President Putin by raising the concerns of
the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.
They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject. The
President pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian
involvement. President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has
in the past.

The
two leaders agreed, though, that this is a substantial hindrance in the ability
of us to move the Russian-U.S. relationship forward,
and agreed to exchange further work regarding commitments of non-interference
in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those
of other countries. So more work to be done on that regard.

Q Mr. Secretary, Nick
Waters (ph) from Bloomberg News. Can
you tell us whether President Trump said whether there would be any
consequences for Russia to the interference in the U.S. election? Did he
spell out any specific consequences that Russia would face? And then
also, on the Syria ceasefire, when does it begin? And what makes you
think the ceasefire will succeed this time when past U.S.-Russian agreements on
a ceasefire have failed?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: With regard
to the interference in the election, I think the President took note of actions
that have been discussed by the Congress. Most recently, additional
sanctions that have been voted out of the Senate to make it clear as to the
seriousness of the issue. But I think what the two Presidents, I think
rightly, focused on is how do we move forward; how do we move forward from
here. Because it’s not clear to me that we will ever come to some
agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations.

So
the question is, what do we do now? And I think the relationship — and
the President made this clear, as well — is too important, and it’s too
important to not find a way to move forward — not
dismissing the issue in any way, and I don’t want to leave you with that
impression. And that is why we’ve agreed to continue engagement and
discussion around how do we secure a commitment that the Russian government has
no intention of and will not interfere in our affairs in the future, nor the
affairs of others, and how do we create a framework in which we have some
capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold
accountable. And this is obviously an issue that’s broader than just
U.S.-Russia, but certainly we see the manifestation of that threat in the
events of last year.

And so I think, again, the Presidents rightly focused on how do we
move forward from what may be simply an intractable disagreement at this point.

As to the Syria ceasefire, I would say
what may be different this time, I think, is the level of commitment on the
part of the Russian government. They see the situation in Syria
transitioning from the defeat of ISIS, which we are progressing rapidly, as you
know. And this is what really has led to this discussion with them as to what do we do to stabilize Syria once the
war against ISIS is won.

And Russia has the same, I think,
interest that we do in having Syria become a stable place, a unified place, but
ultimately a place where we can facilitate a political discussion about their
future, including the future leadership of Syria.

So I think part of why we’re — and
again, we’ll see what happens as to the ability to hold the ceasefire.
But I think part of what’s different is where we are relative to the
whole war against ISIS, where we are in terms of the opposition’s, I think,
position as to their strength within the country, and the regime itself.

In
many respects, people are getting tired. They’re getting weary of the
conflict. And I think we have an opportunity, we hope, to
create the conditions in this area, and the south is I think our first show of
success. We’re hoping we can replicate that elsewhere.

MR. SPICER: Abby.

Q Mr. Secretary, you
spoke, when you were speaking of the ceasefire, about they’re being detailed
information about who would enforce it. Can you give any more information
on what conclusions were reached? And you spoke of the future leadership
of Syria. Do you still believe that Assad has no role in their
government?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: I would like
to defer on the specific roles in particular of security forces on the ground,
because there is — there are a couple of more meetings to occur. This
agreement, I think as you’re aware, was entered into between Jordan, the United
States, and Russia. And we are — we have a very clear picture of who will
provide the security forces, but we have a few more details to work out.
And if I could, I’d like to defer on that until that is completed.

I expect that will be completed within
the next — less than a week. The talks are very active and ongoing.

And your second question again?

Q Does the administration
still believe that Assad has no role in the future government of Syria?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Yes, our position continues to be that we
see no long-term role for the Assad family or the Assad regime. And
we have made this clear to everyone — we’ve certainly made it clear in our
discussions with Russia — that we do not think Syria can achieve international
recognition in the future. Even if they work through a successful political
process, the international community simply is not going to accept a Syria led by the Assad regime.

[Points to the insistance of Washington
on regime change, Will that position be in any way modified?]

And so if Syria is to be accepted and
have a secure — both a secure and economic future, it really requires that they
find new leadership. We think it will be difficult for them to attract
both the humanitarian aid, as well as the reconstruction assistance that’s
going to be required, because there just will be such a low level of confidence
in the Assad government. So that continues to be the view.

And as we’ve said, how Assad leaves is
yet to be determined, but our view is that somewhere in that political process there will be a transition away from the
Assad family.

Q Thank you. Demetri
Sevastopulo, Financial Times. On
North Korea, did President Putin agree to do anything to help the U.S. to put
more pressure on North Korea? And secondly, you seem to have reached
somewhat of an impasse with China in
terms of getting them to put more pressure on North Korea. How are you
going to get them to go beyond what they’ve done already? And what is
President Trump going to say to President Xi on that issue tomorrow?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: We did have
a pretty good exchange on North Korea. I
would say the Russians see it a little differently than we do, so we’re going
to continue those discussions and ask them to do more.

Russia does have economic activity with
North Korea, but I would also hasten to add Russia’s official policy is the
same as ours — a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

And so I think here, again, there is a
difference in terms of view around tactics and pace, and so we will continue to
work with them to see if we cannot persuade them as to the urgency that we see.

I think with respect to China, what our
experience with China has been — and I’ve said this to others — it’s been a bit
uneven. China has taken significant action, and then I think for a lot of
different reasons, they paused and didn’t take additional action. They
then have taken some steps, and then they paused. And I think in our own
view there are a lot of, perhaps, explanations for why those pauses occur.
But we’ve remained very closely engaged with China, both through our dialogues
that have occurred face-to-face, but also on the telephone. We speak very
frequently with them about the situation in North Korea.

So there’s a clear understanding
between the two of us of our intent. And I think the sanctions action
that was taken here just in last week to 10 days certainly got their attention
in terms of their understanding our resolve to bring more pressure to bear on
North Korea by directly going after entities doing business with North Korea,
regardless of where they may be located. We’ve continued to make that
clear to China that we would prefer they take the action themselves. And
we’re still calling upon them to do that.

So I would say our engagement is
unchanged with China, and our expectations are unchanged.

Q And you haven’t given up
hope?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: No, we have
not given up hope. When you’re in an approach like we’re using — and I
call it the peaceful pressure campaign. A lot of people like to
characterize it otherwise, but this is a campaign to lead us to a peaceful
resolution. Because if this fails, we don’t have very many good options
left. And so it is a peaceful pressure campaign, and it’s one that
requires calculated increases in pressure, allow the regime to respond to that
pressure. And it takes a little time to let these things happen.
You enact the pressure; it takes a little while for that to work its way
through.

So it is going to require some level of
patience as we move this along, but when we talk about our strategic patience
ending, what we mean is we’re not going to just sit idly by, and we’re going to
follow this all the way to its conclusion.

Q Thank you. Mr.
Secretary, I have issue — you just mentioned on the DPRK. We note China and Russia recently said —
they asked North Korea to stop the — to freeze, actually, the nuclear
activities, and also they asked the U.S. to stop the deployment of THAAD
system. So did President Putin bring up his concern about the deployment
of THAAD system? And also, what’s the expectation of President Trump
on tomorrow’s meeting with President Xi Jinping, other than the DPRK issue?
Thank you.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: The subject of THAAD did not come up in the
meeting with President Putin.

In terms of the progress of North Korea
and this last missile launch, again, those are some of the differences of views
we have between ourselves in terms of tactics — how to deal with this. President Putin, I think, has expressed a
view not unlike that of China, that they would support a freeze for freeze.

If we study the history of the last 25
years of engagement with various regimes in North Korea, this has been done
before. And every time it was done, North Korea went ahead and proceeded
with its program.

The problem with freezing now — if we
freeze where they are today, we freeze their activities with a very high level
of capability. And we do not think it also sets the right tone for where
these talks should begin. And so
we’re asking North Korea to be prepared to come to the table with an
understanding that these talks are going to be about how do we help you chart a
course to cease and roll back your nuclear program? That’s what we
want to talk about. We’re not interested in talking about how do we have
you stop where you are today. Because stopping where they are today is
not acceptable to us.

…

SECRETARY TILLERSON: And the
national security advisor’s office.

As
to the nature of the 2 hours and 15 minutes, first let me characterize — the
meeting was very constructive. The two leaders, I would say, connected
very quickly. There was a very clear positive chemistry between the two.
I think, again — and I think the positive thing I observed — and I’ve had
many, many meetings with President Putin before — is there was not a lot of
re-litigating of the past. I think both of the leaders feel like there’s
a lot of things in the past that both of us are unhappy about. We’re
unhappy, they’re unhappy.

I think the perspective of both of them
was, this is a really important
relationship. Two largest nuclear powers in the world. It’s a
really important relationship. How
do we start making this work? How do we live with one another? How
do we work with one another? We simply have to find a way to go forward.
And I think that was — that was expressed over and over, multiple times,
I think by both Presidents, this strong desire.

It is a very complicated relationship
today because there are so many issues on the table. And one of the
reasons it took a long time, I think, is because once they met and got acquainted
with one another fairly quickly, there was so much to talk about — all these
issues. Just about everything got
touched on to one degree or another. And I think there was just such
a level of engagement and exchange, and neither one of them wanted to stop.
Several times I had to remind the President, and people were sticking
their heads in the door. And I think they even — they sent in the First
Lady at one point to see if she could get us out of there, and that didn’t work
either. (Laughter.)

But I think — what I’ve described to
you, the 2 hours and 15 minutes, it was
an extraordinarily important meeting. I mean, there’s just — there’s
so much for us to talk about. And it was a good start. Now, I will
tell you we spent a very, very lengthy period on Syria, with a great amount of
detailed exchange on the agreement we had concluded today — it was announced —
but also where we go, and trying to get much greater clarity around how we see
this playing out and how Russia sees it playing out, and where do we share a
common view and where do we have a difference, and do we have the same
objectives in mind.

And I would tell you that, by and
large, our objectives are exactly the same. How we get there, we each
have a view. But there’s a lot more commonality to that than there are
differences. So we want to build on the commonality, and we spent a lot
of time talking about next steps. And
then where there’s differences, we have more work to get together and
understand. Maybe they’ve got the right approach and we’ve got the wrong
approach. [a strong statement by US Secretary of State]

So
there was a substantial amount of time spent on Syria, just because we’ve had
so much activity going on with it.
Q Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, can you say if the
President was unequivocal in his view that Russia did interfere in the
election? Did he offer to produce any evidence or to convince Mr. Putin?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: The Russians have asked for proof
and evidence. I’ll leave that to the intelligence community to address
the answer to that question. And again, I think the President, at
this point, he pressed him and then felt like at this point let’s talk about
how do we go forward. And I think that was the right place to spend our
time, rather than spending a lot of time having a disagreement that everybody
knows we have a disagreement.